{"id":19507,"date":"2022-10-16T18:43:43","date_gmt":"2022-10-16T18:43:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/?p=19507"},"modified":"2024-01-31T20:33:11","modified_gmt":"2024-01-31T20:33:11","slug":"air-piracy-crimes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/","title":{"rendered":"Air Piracy &#038; Crimes"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_63 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title \" >Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Piracy\" title=\"Piracy\">Piracy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Conventions\" title=\"Conventions\">Conventions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Tokyo_Convention\" title=\"Tokyo Convention\">Tokyo Convention<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#State_Obligations\" title=\"State Obligations\">State Obligations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Hague_Convention\" title=\"Hague Convention\">Hague Convention<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Hijacking_Related\" title=\"Hijacking &amp; Related\">Hijacking &amp; Related<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Powers_of_Commander\" title=\"Powers of Commander\">Powers of Commander<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Safety_of_Aerodromes\" title=\"Safety of Aerodromes\">Safety of Aerodromes<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Further_Offences\" title=\"Further Offences\">Further Offences<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/air-piracy-crimes\/#Post_911\" title=\"Post 9\/11\">Post 9\/11<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Piracy\"><\/span>Piracy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>A series of hijacking incidents in the 1950s and 60s brought hijacking and air privacy centre stage. Differences in criminal sanctions and laws, causes, and jurisdictions became apparent. The start of the millennium saw the infamous 9\/11 attacks.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, maritime privacy was one of the few crimes that all States could punish regardless of where the action was taken or whose citizens were affected. In the last number of decades, the notion of air piracy has evolved, and the focus has evolved on terrorism, effectively, politically motivated violent action.<\/p>\n<p>At common law, piracy is a subject of general jurisdiction internationally, by which all States could take action against it. The principle is not fully implemented in aviation treaties. However, something akin to near-universal jurisdiction exists in practice in relation to some of the more serious crimes, in particular hijacking and international terrorism.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conventions\"><\/span>Conventions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The ICAO drafted and promoted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed onboard Aircraft, the Tokyo Convention (1963). This was followed by the Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the so-called Hague Convention.<\/p>\n<p>The Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation, the 1971 Montr\u00e9al Convention followed. There are some further accords dealing with airport security and explosives in the late 1980s and early 1990s.<\/p>\n<p>The Chicago Convention Appendix requires states to apply measures designed to safeguard against acts of unlawful interference with international civil aviation to domestic operations to the extent practicable. They do not have any internal legal effects unless States give effect to it.<\/p>\n<p>The state of registration of an aircraft generally has jurisdiction in relation to offences committed aboard. Aviation crimes follow the traditional maritime principle that the state of registration has jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>The Conventions provide that the State in which a suspected offender is present has the primary position in making a decision as to whether to initiate commercial proceedings or have the accused transferred to another State that has jurisdiction, for example, the State of registration. The State of registration need not be the State in which the aircraft departed or landed. The State of landing may claim jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Tokyo_Convention\"><\/span>Tokyo Convention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Tokyo Convention came into effect at the end of the 1960s. It has since been ratified by nearly all States in the world. The treaty deals with offences that endanger aircraft safety and good order and jeopardise safety and order while in flight.<\/p>\n<p>The pilot, as commander of the aircraft, is given powers to maintain and restore order. It creates a number of internationally recognised crimes and applies to acts whether or not they are offences under the laws of the relevant state. It covers acts which might jeopardise the safety of an aircraft or persons or property therein or jeopardise good order and discipline. The offences are strict liability offences. They may, therefore, apply regardless of intent on the part of the person concerned.<\/p>\n<p>The Convention applies to offences committed by or acts done by a person onboard any aircraft registered in a contracting State while the aircraft is on a flight on the surface of the high seas or any other area outside the territory of any State. It applies to internal flights. It applies from the commencement of take-off to the termination of landing.<\/p>\n<p>The commander may take such persons into custody and deliver them to the authorities where he has reasonable grounds for believing that they have committed on board an aircraft a serious offence under the penal laws of the State of registration.<\/p>\n<p>Offences which have taken place onboard are deemed to be committed in the state of registration as well as the place where they have occurred. The Treaty does not by itself oblige the parties to extradite offenders.<\/p>\n<p>The commander and crew may restrain and disembark passengers whom they reasonably believe to have committed or are about to commit an offence. They may require the assistance of other crewmembers and may request passengers to assist in restraining offenders or potential offenders.<\/p>\n<p>The convention provides immunity for the commander and other persons acting at his behest, including crew and passengers, to suppress offences. The owner of the aircraft and airline are similarly immunised and are not held responsible in proceedings on account of treatment undergone by the person against whom the actions were taken, provided that the actions are taken as a result of the commander\u2019s reasonable belief of a position of actual or impending threat.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"State_Obligations\"><\/span>State Obligations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Under the Convention, the state of registration has primary jurisdiction over offences taking place onboard. However, any state party to the Convention may exercise jurisdiction. It may intercept an aircraft in flight to exercise jurisdiction when the offence has effect in the state&#8217;s territory or is undertaken by or against a national of the state or jeopardises the state\u2019s security, breaches their air safety navigations or where such jurisdiction is necessary in order to fulfil certain obligations of the state.<\/p>\n<p>State parties may take all appropriate measures to restore control of the aircraft to its lawful commander or preserve the commander\u2019s control. Where an aircraft lands in a state other than the state of registration, the state in which it lands must permit the commander to disembark any persons whom he has reasonable grounds for believing has committed or is about to commit an offence onboard the aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>The state of landing must accept the person into custody even if the matter is not an offence under its domestic law and must notify the state of registration as well as the states of the persons detained or other interested persons, who should be appraised of the position. States that may exercise jurisdiction over the person detained must notify accordingly. The state of landing has concurrent jurisdiction with the other States.<\/p>\n<p>States are not required to prosecute or extradite offenders where the offence is political or undertaken for a political purpose. The commander must furnish the authorities to whom the suspected offender is delivered with evidence and information under which the law under the law of the state of registration are in his possession.<\/p>\n<p>A state may use the powers and jurisdiction in the Tokyo Convention to implement its own domestic offences in the area. The Convention effectively provides for a minimum range of offences, which may be supplemented by States.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Hague_Convention\"><\/span>Hague Convention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Because of the above weaknesses (no extradition obligation and political exception), the Hague Convention sought to reduce the phenomenon whereby the planes were hijacked and brought to States presumed to be sympathetic to the political objects of the hijackers.<\/p>\n<p>The Hague Convention provides that it is an offence for a person onboard an aircraft to, either through threat or use of force or intimidation seize or exercise control of an aircraft or to attempt to do so in flight. Accomplices are equally liable. States must subject hijacking to severe penalties on their national law.<\/p>\n<p>States must notify ICAO of any hijackings that have taken place and measures taken in respect of them against the perpetrators. The Convention applies only if the place of take-off or the place of landing of the aircraft on which the hijacking took place is situated outside the territory of the state of registration. The treaty applies to domestic and international flights.<\/p>\n<p>States must assume jurisdiction for a hijacking offence where it takes place onboard an aircraft registered in its territory or where the aircraft in which the offence occurred lands in its territory and the offender is still on board or where the offence is committed on an aircraft leased without crew to a lessee who has a principal place of business or permanent residence in the State.<\/p>\n<p>Where an offender is present in the territory of the state, and it does not extradite the person under the Convention or any of the above states, it must apprehend the hijackers. They may decide to take the individual into custody where this is necessary to enable criminal or extradition proceedings to be taken. If the offender is not extradited, the state must, without exception, whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, submit the case to the competent authority for prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>The Convention provides that hijacking is extraditable and must be included in extradition treaties between parties to the Convention. Where no such treaty is in place and it is required for extradition under domestic law, the Convention may serve as the legal basis for extradition. \u00a0Extradition remains subject to conditions of the relevant treaty and other conditions provided by law.<\/p>\n<p>The Hague Convention does not have the political exception of the Tokyo Convention, but nonetheless, domestic extradition rules may inhibit extradition. Domestic laws may provide a political exception which might potentially prevent extradition under the treaty or under an extradition treaty.<\/p>\n<p>State may use their internal rules to excuse itself from an extradition request even if the State seeking extradition is willing to prosecute the offender. There is no mechanism for dispute settlement other than an arbitration procedure which is not mandatory.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Hijacking_Related\"><\/span>Hijacking &amp; Related<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Air Navigation and Transport Act 1973 gave effect to the Tokyo Convention and the Hague Convention in relation to hijacking and offences on aircraft.\u00a0 Any act or offence which, if it took place within the State, would constitute an offence is equally an offence if it takes place on an Irish-controlled aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>An Irish-controlled aircraft is one registered in the State or satisfies certain requirements or is registered in another state and let or hired and would be registered in the State but for certain conditions.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation creates the offence of unlawful seizure of an aircraft. Provision is made for where such a person can be tried and liability of Irish citizens for trial for such acts. Provision is made for the application of the extradition legislation to persons delivered to An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na under the legislation.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation is not to be interpreted as authorizing or requiring the commander of an aircraft or other person to take action in relation to an offence punishable under laws of a political nature or in respect of an offence based on racial or religious discrimination unless the safety of the aircraft or persons or property on board is endangered by reason of such offences. The Air Navigation and Transport Act 1975 provides that it is an offence.<\/p>\n<p>The Montr\u00e9al Convention of 1971 widens the scope of crimes, which the States agree to make subject to severe penalties. The Convention criminalises any act or attempted act of violence against a person on board an aircraft, in flight, if it is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft. This includes placing explosives, sabotage of the aircraft, ground facilities, navigation, or other actions which facilitate and compromise the aircraft&#8217;s safety.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Powers_of_Commander\"><\/span>Powers of Commander<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The commander of an aircraft has certain powers of arrest and restraint in respect of persons committing an offence or jeopardizing the safety of aircraft, persons or property, good order or discipline. Reasonable measures, including restraint, may be taken to protect safety, good order, and discipline or to enable the person to be delivered to An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na.<\/p>\n<p>The commander may authorize the assistance of members of the crew and request the assistance of other persons on the aircraft. \u00a0Anyone on board may, with or without being ordered or requested, take reasonable measures which are immediately necessary to protect the safety of aircraft and persons or property in them. The restraint is not to continue beyond the time when the flight ceases, and the persons are delivered to An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na.<\/p>\n<p>The commander of the aircraft must, as soon as possible, notify the appropriate authorities that persons have been placed under restraint and the reasons for such restraint.<\/p>\n<p>The commander of an aircraft who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person has committed or is about to commit an offence or may jeopardize the aircraft, whether or not it is an offence or affect the safety of persons or good order, may order the person to disembark.<\/p>\n<p>The commander of the aircraft must notify the appropriate authority that the person has disembarked. He has the power to deliver the person to An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na. The commander must furnish information and evidence of the act concerned.<\/p>\n<p>The commander, members of the crew, or passengers are not liable for conviction or damages in respect of actions taken pursuant to rights under the legislation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Safety_of_Aerodromes\"><\/span>Safety of Aerodromes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Air Navigation and Transport Act 1988 contained provisions to promote the security and safety of aviation. The owner and controller of every aerodrome and airport is obliged to comply with requirements in relation to public order and security and the safety of all persons and aircraft using it. The Minister may make directions as to the standards of security and safety required.<\/p>\n<p>An operator of an aerodrome must report to the Minister in relation to measures to be taken. The Minister may revoke, cancel, or suspend the license or authorization where the relevant security and safety requirements have not been taken. He may prohibit landing or departure from the aerodrome or may impose certain conditions where the interests of public order, safety, or security so require.<\/p>\n<p>Operators of aerodromes and airports must maintain a policy of insurance at all times. It must insure the owner or occupier against liability in respect of loss or damage to persons.<\/p>\n<p>There are prohibitions on persons having dangerous goods, including firearms, explosives, dangerous articles, or articles capable of being adopted for injuring or incapacitating a person or damaging property, without lawful authority in an aerodrome or air navigation installation which does not form part of the aerodrome.<\/p>\n<p>The 1988 legislation adopted and made law the 1975 protocol to the Warsaw Convention. It also made provisions in relation to the 1984 protocols to the Chicago Convention.<\/p>\n<p>The Department of Transport (powers later transferred) is given powers to detain any aircraft to secure compliance with legislation or with convention.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Further_Offences\"><\/span>Further Offences<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>It is an offence to give a false alarm in relation to the operation of an aircraft, aerodrome, or installation. It is an offence to impersonate an authorised officer.\u00a0It is an offence for any person on board an aircraft to<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>commit an act of violence which is likely to endanger safety,<\/li>\n<li>destroy an aircraft in service,<\/li>\n<li>place any device or substance likely to destroy it, interfere with the operation of any air navigation facility,<\/li>\n<li>to communicate false information about the communication and dangers likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft,<\/li>\n<li>perform any act of violence against a person at an aerodrome to destroy or damage facilities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>A person aboard an aircraft who engages in behaviour which is likely to cause serious offence or annoyance to any person at any time after being requested by the crew to desist is guilty of an offence. A person on an aircraft who engages in threatening,, abusive, or insulting behavior including by gesture with intent to cause breach of the peace is guilty of an offence.<\/p>\n<p>1988 Montr\u00e9al Protocol increased the list of aviation crimes, including attacks on aircraft and airports involving aviation. A new Montr\u00e9al Treaty governing plastic explosives was signed in 1991sought to meet the developments in plastic explosives.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Post_911\"><\/span>Post 9\/11<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Following the 9\/11 attacks, the ICAO reviewed existing aviation crime provisions. New instruments were signed in Beijing in 2010 which seek to replace the Montr\u00e9al Convention and Protocols and to amend the Hague Convention. They seek to increase aviation-related offences covering the use of a civil aircraft, causing death or injury, and using aircraft to deliver weapons.<\/p>\n<p>It provides offences of transporting dangerous materials, including explosives, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. None of the offences may be considered political.<\/p>\n<p>The relevant instruments have not yet received the requisite number of ratifications to take force. They do not provide for any further provision for prosecution.<\/p>\n<!--themify_builder_content-->\n<div id=\"themify_builder_content-19507\" data-postid=\"19507\" class=\"themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-19507 themify_builder tf_clear\">\n    <\/div>\n<!--\/themify_builder_content-->\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Piracy A series of hijacking incidents in the 1950s and 60s brought hijacking and air privacy centre stage. Differences in criminal sanctions and laws, causes, and jurisdictions became apparent. The start of the millennium saw the infamous 9\/11 attacks. Historically, maritime privacy was one of the few crimes that all States could punish regardless of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[233],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19507"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19507"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19507\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31240,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19507\/revisions\/31240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}